Ron Paul's comments were incomplete, but marginally accurate, about what Bin Laden's VERIFIABLY stated reason for directing his on-going jihad at the U.S. specifically (i.e., bases in Saudia Arabia during Iraq I).
Paul leaves out, to his political peril, that there are/were other motives at work in these confused and brainwashed minds as well (e.g., infidels should die, "cultural jealousy", hatred of permissiveness exemplified in their minds by the U.S., support of Israel, etc). This partial truth and important omission by Paul though, does not qualify as "un-American". In fact, following the Constitution as closely as possible seems like the most American thing one can do. And even if you support the Iraq and Libya "actions", their constitutionality is questionable.
I admit that Ron Paul leaves out important points and deserves some criticism on this issue, but not name calling.
But, despite some of your awesome work in the cause of freedom and transparency, I guess in the end you are still one of those loyal Republicans that believe that all foreign policy decisions involving the military (at least by Republican presidents) are sacrosanct and above criticism, and that one should never criticize another member of the party. This snarky firing back with the "unAmerican" label sounds a lot like Ed Schulz or Rachel Maddow criticizing Tea Partiers for their "unAmerican" concerns about Medicare and Social Security.
Also, was it unAmerican for the U.S. to supply arms to Bin Laden's friends in Afghanistan in 1979? Just asking. In any case, using the unAmerican label where it does not apply to unconstitutional action is just a political hack move.
btw we didn't just givem weapons for the hell of it. we were fighting this thing called the cold war. they were the enemy of our enemy at the time. shit changes it's a fuct up wold my man.
Not sure when commitment to the principles of the Constitution became anti-American, but it explains the national, cultural and moral decline in the US. No worries for the Red and Blue Teams, though. There’s no chance in hell that Ron Paul gets elected or the US restores it’s legacy as the freest country on earth. (Currently no. 9 and sinking fast, according to the Heritage Foundation’s Index of Economic Freedom).
Stupid is as sheople votes. Ron Paul was, is and will be the front runner come election day, like him or not, drinking the Anti-PaulBot Koolaid or not. A vote "against" Ron Paul is a vote for Obama! Live with your foolish decision!
Nice post.Thank you for taking the time to publish this information very useful!I’m still waiting for some interesting thoughts from your side in your next post thanks
Saying "We deserved what we got on 9/11" WOULD be a statement that is both anti-American and irrational. Paul never said this. If he said those words, don't say "basically", post it!! I want to hear those words, otherwise you are engaging in misrepresentation. That's similar to Obama saying that, "Paul Ryan's budget basically threw seniors off the cliff". NO, it didn't, but it sure seemed that way to Dems who didn't like to hear about the problems of Soc Security & Medicare. Well, many Republicans evidently have the same reaction to any questioning of policy or the military-industrial complex.
What Ron Paul did say and imply is, "What do you expect!"...when you have some collectivist fanatics (who already don't like or trust you) and they see your foreign policy as a threat. In other words, no foreigner should dictate our policy, but thinking that military intervention and occupation doesn't/shouldn't piss these people off further, is naive and ignorantly jingoistic. BTW, I think that, and acknowledged in my last post, that Paul deserved some criticism for his imprecise presentation of his non-interventionist ideal, and probably for the lack of detail in his overall foreign policy prescriptions. This is not his strongest suit. But, given the huge debt driven (somewhat) by military spending and the admonition by the Founders to avoid foreign military entanglements, his view deserves careful consideration and debate, not misrepresentation and ridicule.
youre another paid shill for the banks. they are spending millions trying to deprive him of exposure ,and to the extent they cannot, they are paying people to smear him.
that's ok. your smearing will only attract more people to ask why you are smearing . at this point, any publicity is good publicity. yea, youre right he wont' win, and even if he does, he'll be neutralized either physically or through some political maneuver like a faked scandal or something, because the banks cannot let him take power.
but it makes no difference, the tide is turning. could take 20 years. but the days of people like you are numbered because the banks cannot afford to pay off everyone.
Ron Paul's comments were incomplete, but marginally accurate, about what Bin Laden's VERIFIABLY stated reason for directing his on-going jihad at the U.S. specifically (i.e., bases in Saudia Arabia during Iraq I).
ReplyDeletePaul leaves out, to his political peril, that there are/were other motives at work in these confused and brainwashed minds as well (e.g., infidels should die, "cultural jealousy", hatred of permissiveness exemplified in their minds by the U.S., support of Israel, etc). This partial truth and important omission by Paul though, does not qualify as "un-American". In fact, following the Constitution as closely as possible seems like the most American thing one can do. And even if you support the Iraq and Libya "actions", their constitutionality is questionable.
I admit that Ron Paul leaves out important points and deserves some criticism on this issue, but not name calling.
But, despite some of your awesome work in the cause of freedom and transparency, I guess in the end you are still one of those loyal Republicans that believe that all foreign policy decisions involving the military (at least by Republican presidents) are sacrosanct and above criticism, and that one should never criticize another member of the party. This snarky firing back with the "unAmerican" label sounds a lot like Ed Schulz or Rachel Maddow criticizing Tea Partiers for their "unAmerican" concerns about Medicare and Social Security.
Also, was it unAmerican for the U.S. to supply arms to Bin Laden's friends in Afghanistan in 1979? Just asking. In any case, using the unAmerican label where it does not apply to unconstitutional action is just a political hack move.
did we deserve to be hit on 9-11?
ReplyDeletebecause thats basically what Paul said.
ReplyDeletethats unAmerican, sorry you disagree
ReplyDeletebtw we didn't just givem weapons for the hell of it. we were fighting this thing called the cold war. they were the enemy of our enemy at the time. shit changes it's a fuct up wold my man.
ReplyDeleteNot sure when commitment to the principles of the Constitution became anti-American, but it explains the national, cultural and moral decline in the US. No worries for the Red and Blue Teams, though. There’s no chance in hell that Ron Paul gets elected or the US restores it’s legacy as the freest country on earth. (Currently no. 9 and sinking fast, according to the Heritage Foundation’s Index of Economic Freedom).
ReplyDeleteThank God he has no chance in Hell. He is a menace for the country with his idiocy.
ReplyDeleteStupid is as sheople votes. Ron Paul was, is and will be the front runner come election day, like him or not, drinking the Anti-PaulBot Koolaid or not. A vote "against" Ron Paul is a vote for Obama! Live with your foolish decision!
ReplyDeleteBrick if Paul Wins the Nomination, I'll bust my ass to get him elected....if I don't killmyself first
ReplyDeleteNice post.Thank you for taking the time to publish this information very useful!I’m still waiting for some interesting thoughts from your side in your next post thanks
ReplyDeleteSaying "We deserved what we got on 9/11" WOULD be a statement that is both anti-American and irrational. Paul never said this. If he said those words, don't say "basically", post it!! I want to hear those words, otherwise you are engaging in misrepresentation. That's similar to Obama saying that, "Paul Ryan's budget basically threw seniors off the cliff". NO, it didn't, but it sure seemed that way to Dems who didn't like to hear about the problems of Soc Security & Medicare. Well, many Republicans evidently have the same reaction to any questioning of policy or the military-industrial complex.
ReplyDeleteWhat Ron Paul did say and imply is, "What do you expect!"...when you have some collectivist fanatics (who already don't like or trust you) and they see your foreign policy as a threat. In other words, no foreigner should dictate our policy, but thinking that military intervention and occupation doesn't/shouldn't piss these people off further, is naive and ignorantly jingoistic. BTW, I think that, and acknowledged in my last post, that Paul deserved some criticism for his imprecise presentation of his non-interventionist ideal, and probably for the lack of detail in his overall foreign policy prescriptions. This is not his strongest suit. But, given the huge debt driven (somewhat) by military spending and the admonition by the Founders to avoid foreign military entanglements, his view deserves careful consideration and debate, not misrepresentation and ridicule.
youre another paid shill for the banks. they are spending millions trying to deprive him of exposure ,and to the extent they cannot, they are paying people to smear him.
ReplyDeletethat's ok. your smearing will only attract more people to ask why you are smearing . at this point, any publicity is good publicity. yea, youre right he wont' win, and even if he does, he'll be neutralized either physically or through some political maneuver like a faked scandal or something, because the banks cannot let him take power.
but it makes no difference, the tide is turning. could take 20 years. but the days of people like you are numbered because the banks cannot afford to pay off everyone.